effected so successfully that a member of the British Parliament, Labouchere, could publicly say, without meeting any refutation, that “he was not such a visionary as Henry George. He did not propose to take the land from the landlords and rent it out again. What he was in favour of was putting a tax on land values.”[1] That is, whilst attributing to George what he could not possibly have said, Labouchere, by way of correcting these imaginary fantasies, suggested that which Henry George did indeed say.
Thanks to the collective efforts of all those interested in defending the institution of landed property, the teaching of George, irresistibly convincing in its simplicity and clearness, remains almost unknown, and of late years attracts less and less attention.
Here and there in Scotland, Portugal, or New Zealand he is recalled to mind, and amongst hundreds of scientists there appears one who knows and defends his teachings. But in England and the United States the number of his adherents dwindles smaller and smaller; in France his teaching is almost unknown; in Germany it is preached in a very small circle, and is everywhere stifled by the noisy teaching of Socialism.
IV.
People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it. (And it is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.)
If people refer to this teaching they do so either in attributing to it that which it does not say, or in re-asserting that which has been refuted by
- ↑ The Works of Henry George, Vol. X.. p. 516.
